How many Republicans can you name...

How many prominent Republicans are currently under investigation or indicted as of today. Let's see if we can list them all. I'll start:

#1 Scooter Libby

Next

 

Tom Noe :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Charlie

 

Indicted Republicans

#2 Tom Delay.

Regards,
CraigG

 

Tom Noe is a republican? That scum! He should be tarred and feathered!


Regards,
CraigG

 

***hijacked***

who cares. they didnt do the crimes because they are republicans they did them because they are politicains :secret: lol

thats like how many catholic priests are under investigation. doesnt make all catholics bad.

 

#4 Dick Cheney
Is he still under investigation for the Halliburton scam?

Regards,
CraigG

 

No matter what party is in power, they are all corrupt.

Clinton was a philandering sleazebag that had Vince Foster rubbed off, and Bush is a village idiot that somehow managed to get elected and rub off 2000+ Americans in the Iraq war.

Get my point, they all suck.

 

Are they investigating the Bush/Gannon relationship?

 

They should, and like the days of old in Texas, we'll have a fair trial and we'll shoot them.

 

I have a problem with a person being investigated for a noncrime, like Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart was, being charged with the crime of obstruction of Justice for they either did not answered the noncrime questions honestly out of embrassment or memory recall wasn't up to it.

Only an extreme leftist or extreme rightest support this Kafka like nightmare called justice.
Remember "The Trial" Moen. Think about it objectivelly and forget politics.
That is what the rank and file Republicans did when they refused to impeach Clinton for "lying" about Monica when he was investigated. Or do you agree with Rush on this type of justice?

 

I partially agree with some of your comments, I think, but Clinton was impeached by the Republicans or have you forgotten that? Lying to a special prosecutor IS a crime and even though Clinton my have done a lot of things in the areas of foreign relations, economics, and social program reforms that I did like, he had a personal moral weakness that tarnished his presidency. And Martha is just a plain and simply a white collar criminal like so many others.
Special prosecutors have to have the power they have or they wouldn't be effective at finding out the truth when they deal with people as powerful as the Administration and Congress. Ken Starr took it a bit too far but that is always the danger we face when invoking a special prosecutor.

 

Martha Stewart did not break any law when she was investigated but then the investigators said broke the law while under investigation by misanswering to them.
Look up the case.
Ken Starr and some extreme right wing or just stupid republicans brought Clinton to impeachment hearings but he was not impeached or he would have been removed from power. The majority of the Republicans sided with the thought that someone should not be charged with a crime for failing to answer correctly charges that are not criminal.
Libby was also investigated for a noncrime. The CIA comments made or not made do not matter legally for it was not a crime based upon how many years removed that person was from being employed by the CIA etc...However, since he did not answer the questions correctly as seen fit by those powers that be during the noncrime investigation he was charged with the same nonsense as Clinton with prejury and Obstruction of Justice.

As a character from Kafka would ask, "How can it be obstruction of justice when no crime was commited in the first place"?

I am not a fan of the Bush team. I saw to many of his father's people put in places of power and we all know about his fathers background. I am not a fan of Clinton as I have posted many times as well. (Funny that both of those guys seem to be friends, birds of the feather-flock together). However, we can not have people gone after politically for the noncrimes for it fits an agenda. Be it rightest or leftist it is not good for the rest of us when the law becomes perverted.

 

Well, I hate to belabor the point but Clinton was impeached. It does NOT mean that you are removed from office. That is another step that was not taken by the Republicans that did indeed impeach Clinton. Look it up.

 

Andy, what you said here is basicly true in all respects, it's only a latter of semantics, the basis of your argument is true. It was based on a noncrime and this should put an end to this exercise in who broke wind and when.

A Short History of Impeachment
High crimes and misdemeanors
by Borgna Brunner

The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: "the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second.

(Here is where Moen splits hairs. He was impeached, but never convicted)

Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged down—though not defeated—by the character issues brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.

The infamous "Starr Report" outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998, and subsequently made available to the public. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.

On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.

 

Thanks OldDan, For clearing up the semantics. However, I am disappointed to see that it was not the majority of republicans who voted against the impeachment from office. It is one thing to get someone for a crime it is another to railroad on a trump up charge.

There was enough stuff on Clinton alone for taking money from a foreign nation, Communist China, that was grounds for impeachment.( OldDan made a brillant post on another thread on this matter of record) I always wondered why Starr went after the sex thing. Was is juicy for media attention. Was it easy and he took the lazy road. Or did he think that if he investigated or after investigating "white water", Foster, China, etc...that he would end up dead if he made that the issue?
Anyway, my memory was a little hazy on the numbers end but with all that sex talk who could focus on substance anyway or was that the point!

 

You and Andy should just go off and form a circle jerk with each other. You can't even admit when your out and out wrong. Don't bother me anymore rhetoric of non-consequence. You guys are just ignoramuses.

 

"However, I am disappointed to see that it was not the majority of republicans who voted against the impeachment from office". Andy. previous post.

I do not understand. I stated that I was wrong on the amount of republician senators that voted against impeachment. I thought that it was the majority but as OldDan pointed out, objectively, with the detailed information in his post that it was not and Clinton was not impeached. The House's vote is more of a recommendation for impeachment and the Senate votes on the trial for impeachment. If a president is impeached by the Senate, then he is no longer president. That was why Nixon resigned. He did not want that to happen to him when it was brought up as a potential response to Watergate.

Bottom line is Moen I am against a overzealous lawyer going after anyone to make a name for him or herself and using the technique of investigating a noncrime in the attempt to dupe up charges of a crime, e.g. obstruction of justice/prejury.

As I stated before it is out of a Kafka novel where a person is charged for commiting a crime for failing to give the answers the powers that be wanted when investigating a noncrime.

Example
"Did you walk across the street on June 13, 1999."
Um I might have or might not, I don't remember.
Your honour the defendent may not have commited a crime crossing the street but the defendent failed to answer my question and therefore caused an obstruction of justice"

Now maybe the person did not remember or maybe the person did not want to answer for there was a topless bar across the street and did not want a line of questioning that might embrass him and his family. In either case it is a broad example of the junk that is going down on Libby and has gone down on Martha Stewart and did on Clinton with the Monica thing.

That is my point and politics aside, it is a danqerous road for freedom and justice for anyone to support this type of tactic.

 

Why try and explain, he thought that by suggesting forming a circle, he would be invited, as he is the only "jerk" we have around here.

 

I think we know who's having a circle jerk. Danr stated in another thread that he and Moen are secure with their manhood. What was that all about?? The closet door has just swung open!

 

I am glad you said that because it basically nullifies everything you have hereto fore spouted. I think everyone can now see plainly the type of ignorance that produces these KILLKILLKILL attitudes. It is a shame that these type of ignorant people have real power in our society. This really proves that these lower type of people really do rush to attack and maybe the Muslims are not that bad.